House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Regional Judicial Services REGIONAL JUDICIAL SERVICES The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher REGIONAL JUDICIAL SERVICES The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (14:54): I have a supplementary question to the Attorney, on a related issue. People from the country—and it can work both ways of course—who commit or who are alleged to have committed an offence in the city have to attend the court in the city, and this argument extends in the various locations around the state. With modern technology, why can't those matters be heard, for example, in the city where the person lives? I will give an example: someone who is in the electorate of Frome. That person has had to travel to Adelaide I think four times on a traffic matter which is alleged to have occurred in Adelaide, when there is a court in Pirie. This is a gross burden, particularly on country people, but it can work the other way with city people who have allegedly committed an offence in the country. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member didn't seek leave to explain the question. The Attorney-General. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister for Business Services and Consumers The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:54): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the honourable member for Fisher for that question. The honourable member makes a very important point and that is that increasingly, for us to be able to deliver justice to the people of South Australia in an efficient and timely fashion, we are going to need to embrace new technology, in particular, video technology. That is something which is occurring as we speak. However, in order to deliver that, I think there are a couple of things members need to bear in mind. The first thing is that there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between the delivery of a service through video linkage if it is an interlocutory matter, in other words, something like an adjournment or a directions hearing or something of that nature, when compared with an actual trial. Even at trial, a plea of guilty is clearly a different proposition to a trial in which there are contested facts and witnesses need to be cross-examined and suchlike. I think the day when we are able to deal with a contested matter routinely in court by video link is yet to arrive. It is an exceptional thing that does happen from time to time when we have interstate or overseas witnesses in some of the higher courts, but it does involve quite a lot of activity and staffing at both ends, which is something that is important. That said, the Courts Administration Authority has been looking at questions about providing more of these remote opportunities for people in the country, for example, to have their matters dealt with by attending at the courthouse in a country town. Likewise, if the situation were reversed, it would be possible for a person in the city, maybe, to be able to take advantage of those links. This is an evolving thing and it is something that I am very keen to discuss with any of the non-metropolitan members here who might have those issues, because it is something that we do need to develop in the justice system. It is something we are working on, but presently there are practical and technological limits to how much can easily be done using that remote technology.